Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

498).

12. Further, the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from those of Ryaz Ahmed. In that case, the proposed amendment by the defendant was allowed to be  filed as he wanted to make a counterclaim by way of a decree for grant of mandatory injunction to remove the built-up area on the disputed portion of land. It was therein held that instead of driving the defendant to file a separate suit therefor, it was more appropriate to allow the counterclaim keeping in mind the prayer of a negative declaration in the plaint. However, in the instant case, the counterclaim was purported to have been filed for passing of a decree for recovery of possession of the disputed land after the suit had been filed.